Guest-editor’s introduction

Dorothy Figueira
0
0
D. Figueira (&)
Athens, GA, USA
-
This cluster of articles is the fruit of a panel that was organized at the Congress of
the International Comparative Literature Association that took place in Paris in July
2013. The topic of discussion was the interface between religion and literature. In
the initial essay, Figueira examines the fundamental concern of the cluster. In the
context of a more general de-emphasis of religion as a theme in literature, she
questions the reception of deeply religiously-themed novels in the twentieth
century. She sees a reticence on the part of readers, particularly in the US, to deal
with texts that are significantly informed by belief structures. She questions whether
Catholic-themed novels, for example, might be particularly disregarded, given the
Protestant prejudice against Catholicism that pervades American society and
academe. Do Catholic texts suffer because Catholicism in general is deemed
unAmerican? This question leads her to ask how the study of religion, in general, is
institutionalized in the US? How does religion figure in interdisciplinary studies?
Figueira notes that, of all the interdisciplinary subfields that have flourished in the
US under the umbrella of comparative literature, religion and literature has had the
least traction. As a case in point, Figueira focuses, in particular, on the reception of I
promessi sposi, placing it within the context of American anti-Catholic nativism and
Italian anti-clericism that have both tainted the reception of Manzonis work.
After this examination of theoretical concerns regarding the role of religion in the
large novel, we proceed with a series of individual case studies. Gerald Gillespie
evokes the extensive scope of religious consciousness in literature from the
revolutions of the nineteenth century to the modernist period. He offers a succinct
panorama of the foci that appear in literature. In the work of Schopenhauer, we find
the human subject to a cosmic will and capable of moral insight through art.
Pessimism and its answer of heroic perseverance finds particular resonance in the
work of Nietzsche, Wagner, and Freud. Gillespie then moves on to modernist
authors who use anthropological insight in order to understand the human condition.
In particular, he notes their efforts to constitute meaning through the reenactment of
myth and ritual. Thomas Manns Protestantism and its affirmation of the individual
prevented him from sacrificing that same individual to the State or any other mythic
collective. James Joyce, while abhorring the anti-individualism of totalitarianism,
deconstructs all religions by subsuming everything in archetypes. By viewing
experience as sacramental, Marcel Proust provides a ritualistic relationship to art by
clothing his prose in a language of religious symbolism. For all these modernists,
literature functions as a reincarnation of the ritual moment, a sacramental
embodiment that seeks to reunify the past and the present.
This basic inquiryhow literature deals with transcendenceis followed up in
Monika Schmitz-Emanss investigation of the work of Jean Paul. Schmitz-Emans
asks what kind of language is most appropriate to deal with religion, belief, and
mans relationship to the transcendent. Clearly, it is not the language of philosophy
that is best suited for this task. Rather it is the language of the imagination and
emotion, in other words, the language of literature where the dimension of inner
experience beyond the grasp of reason can be articulated. Schmitz-Emans focuses
her examination on the work of Jean Paul, particularly on the manner in which he
investigates theological concepts as a form of religious discourse. She shows the
degree to which this authors oeuvre deals with the themes of death, resurrection
and the afterlife and how these themes are articulated as part of a larger thematic
dealing with writing and communication. The Self in Jean Paul appears isolated in a
world of phantoms, often addressed in a monological sermon and involving the
persona of the preacher. Schimtz-Emans also traces Jean Pauls indebtedness to the
Glaubensphilosophie of his friend Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. His characters engage
in what can be termed nihilism experiments, where the Self undergoes trauma at the
thought of the non-existence of a transcendent world. The ensuing desperation
loosens emotions that provide access to a spiritual realm. As Schmitz-Emans shows,
Jacobis Glaubensphilosophie also becomes a propitious vehicle for Jean Paul to
express a unique self-image of the artist.
Steven Shankman offers two additional case studiesthis time from Russian
literatureof authors attempts to grapple with religion in the format of the large
novel. Shankman provides a close reading of Dostoevskys Brothers Karamazov
and Vassily Grossmans Life and Fate in light of the work of Emmanuel Levinas.
Shankman explores Levinass injunction to think God on the basis of ethics
outside the question of Gods existence or non-existence. He explores Levinass
thesis that obedience to God manifests itself in responsibility to the Other. He then
applies Levinass directive to Dostoevskys masterpiece. Similarly, in his close
reading of Grossman, Shankman shows how the itinerary of what Levinas terms
illeity can be conceived outside of ontology and outside the question of Gods
existence. Schmitz-Emans and Shankman both show how an examination of
religious imagery and ethics can enrich our understanding of canonical texts in new
and inventive ways.
Finally, John Burt Foster, Jr. continues to analyze the long Russian novel in his
examination of the themes of vengeance and mercy in Tolstoys Anna Karenina. He
distinguishes the role religion plays in this novel from that of his later
postconversion shorter works. As in the case of Figueiras essay, Foster also addresses
the issue of the reception of religion in the English-speaking world. Because of the
translation history of Tolstoy into English, he has often been seen as a writer who
deals with religious issues, whereas in Anna Karenina, religion is expressed
primarily through character delineation, action and situation rather than through
dialogue, thus setting it apart from his later didactic work. Foster notes how in Anna
Kareninas epigraph, Tolstoy appropriates (via Schopenhauer) Pauls words
Vengeance is Mine, but omits the coda This sayeth the Lord. He argues that
Tolstoy was not interested in the divine source of punishment but rather articulating
Schopenhauers concern with limiting human vengeful tendencies. If we do not
recognize what is left out of the biblical injunction of Tolstoys Old Church
Slavonic, we can misunderstand the phrase as harshly vindictive. Instead Foster
argues that the Russian author is interested in depicting the psychic counterweight to
revenge located in mercy and the power to forgive. In fact, Anna Karenina examines
the interplay between forgiveness and taking revenge upon oneself. Tolstoy issues a
stern command to harness vengeful feelings and acknowledge mercys natural
power. It is Annas inability to forgive herself that causes her death and any
condemnation of her is not Tolstoys intent. Rather, his depiction of the interaction
between vengeful feelings and forgiveness is more fluid, subtle and complex.
This cluster seeks to raise interesting questions regarding the role of religion in
literature and the reception of the religious themes in literary studies. It explores
several fruitful avenues for viewing literature from a religious perspective. As such,
it offers a timely corrective, reminding readers that religious issues (symbolism,
ritual, myth, ethics and theology) are worth exploring, even if they have fallen out of
fashion. The theoretical, philosophical and sociological reasons why such studies
are not explored more frequently is also of fundamental interest to literary scholars.